• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:28:34 -0500

Jarle Stabell wrote:

> BTW: Do people think XML parsers generally will/should complain about a ]]> when it for *compatibility* should be ]]> ?
> (Or do I misinterpret the draft text:
> 
> 'and must for compatibility, be escaped using ">" or a character reference when it appears in the string "]]>", when that string is not marking the end of a CDATA section'
> 
> Does it mean that the user should better use ">" to be compatible with SGML, or that the XML parser should report this as an error if not escaped using ">"?)

A conforming XML parser *must* report this as an error.  "For
compatibility" just gives the rationale for the requirement; it doesn't
lessen the requirement on parsers to report the error. The spec's
definition of "for compatibility" makes this clear:

for compatibility 
     A feature of XML included solely to ensure that XML remains
compatible with SGML. 

Note that "for compatibility" is quite different from "for
interoperability".

James



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: ]]> within a CDATA marked section ?
    • From: Jarle Stabell <jarle.stabell@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Example and DTD Archive?
• Next by Date: Re: EMBED and validation
• Previous by thread: Re: ]]> within a CDATA marked section ?
• Next by thread: MONDO Design Document v0.3.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread